The Problem With Studies

Here is a video I stumbled upon that shows an extremely large flaw within the scientific community in regards to trials on pharmaceuticals. As you can imagine it also more than likely happens with supplements. The video is just pharmaceutical specific.

uh ohhh..Spaniard done went and pissed off half the forum!
obviously you are aware, I have issues with these as well - especially when medical ones are then extrapolated as basis for "understanding" supplements
silly

uh ohhh..Spaniard done went and pissed off half the forum!
obviously you are aware, I have issues with these as well - especially when medical ones are then extrapolated as basis for "understanding" supplements
silly

It's a great video and it's present throughout the medical world. In the case of supplements, studies showing negative results are actually regularly posted (hence what we now know about ecdy, trib, arginine, etc)

http://pescience.com/
http://selectprotein.com/
The above is my own opinion and does not reflect the opinion of PES

It's a great video and it's present throughout the medical world. In the case of supplements, studies showing negative results are actually regularly posted (hence what we now know about ecdy, trib, arginine, etc)

That was actually my thought as well. Much less to lose if a supplement is bunk versus a agent that is being used for the treatment of cancer.

This is why this forum is a great resource real world information. I prefer a combination of scientific research and anecdotal feedback. One is not necessarily better than the other.

Studies are often flawed or the population doesn't match our profile. We're often left with conclusions based on mice, older woman, cancer patients, diabetics, or if we're "lucky" college students that did leg extensions.

On the other hand, a few bros can post placebo responses about the latest supplement.

However, when we take it all together, the real truth starts to emerge. Especially when multiple studies start to show consistent results or many members post similar accounts.

without someone else knowing exactly what is "intuitively obvious" to you, and not on your same wavelength, this would then equate to perfect example of your own bias, no?

hence, any study you deem "intuitive and valid" and one you deem "worthless" would be anecdotal feedback, nothing more

No

Intuitively obvious is, I look out over the ocean and see an edge therefore the earth is cube and I can fall off said edge or in a sports science perspective, I eat a meal every 3.5 hours and have a six pack so eating every 3.5 hours is how you get a sixpack.

This is what I mean by saying intuitively obvious. These are assumptions based solely on what is (often visually) obvious to them.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

I am extremely open to anecdotal feedback in terms of the fitness and supplement world so agree with you in part.

This video is about the pharmaceutical industry. The option of 'living it' instead of 'reading it' would omit all scientific research and controlled studies on drugs created to enhance and extend lives.

We can take anecdotal feedback on arginine but doing that in the medical world would be catastrophic lol.

I am extremely open to anecdotal feedback in terms of the fitness and supplement world so agree with you in part.

This video is about the pharmaceutical industry. The option of 'living it' instead of 'reading it' would omit all scientific research and controlled studies on drugs created to enhance and extend lives.

We can take anecdotal feedback on arginine but doing that in the medical world would be catastrophic lol.

The key is finding the balance. Science is far from perfect but refusing to even consider it is naive at best

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

Randomized controlled trials published in peer reviewed journals are sooo over rated! I only do what is intuitively obvious to me and refuse to consider anything else

I see a lot in supplements and training that I do in the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO people. A lot of people seem to be OK trusting their health to a complete stranger on the internet, who has no training and no actual data to back them up, rather than peer-reviewed data and the physicians and scientists that present it.

The key is finding the balance. Science is far from perfect but refusing to even consider it is naive at best

well said
balance, indeed..it is unfortunate this is not practiced by a very large segment of ppl who reside on this (and other) forums
for the record: I am not anti-science; simply anti everything-science-and-nothing-else stance

well said
balance, indeed..it is unfortunate this is not practiced by a very large segment of ppl who reside on this (and other) forums
for the record: I am not anti-science; simply anti everything-science-and-nothing-else stance

I see a lot in supplements and training that I do in the anti-vaccine and anti-GMO people. A lot of people seem to be OK trusting their health to a complete stranger on the internet, who has no training and no actual data to back them up, rather than peer-reviewed data and the physicians and scientists that present it.

Join a paleo community and see how long before your head explodes.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates

trick question?
science has limitations, and will not help you understand everything, nor prove a quantity / quality absolute value
it is really pretty simple concept..science (due to studies themselves and how such are presented) is flawed, more than it is accurate

trick question?
science has limitations, and will not help you understand everything, nor prove a quantity / quality absolute value
it is really pretty simple concept..science (due to studies themselves and how such are presented) is flawed, more than it is accurate

Not a trick question at all. You made a statement and I am asking you to clarify what you said.

Not a trick question at all. You made a statement and I am asking you to clarify what you said.

I would think it to be obvious..anecdotal feedback, real-world experience..things that cannot be dissected within the world of studies
not something I really care to waste time further time discussing tbh..what my stance is, what your stance is - these are not going to change, due to debating the issue

I would think it to be obvious..anecdotal feedback, real-world experience..things that cannot be dissected within the world of studies
not something I really care to waste time further time discussing tbh..what my stance is, what your stance is - these are not going to change, due to debating the issue

Actually they can be analyzed "within the world of studies". Saying that they cannot is a way to get out of having a discussion that involves science and it just plain lazy. And I am not looking to have a debate. Again. You made a statement and I asked for you to actually clarify that statement.

Actually they can be analyzed "within the world of studies". Saying that they cannot is a way to get out of having a discussion that involves science and it just plain lazy. And I am not looking to have a debate. Again. You made a statement and I asked for you to actually clarify that statement.

My intent for this thread was not to start an uproar. It was to further educate people that studies are not the end all be all and a definitive answer, nothing more. Studies are an extremely important part of the puzzle but not a final answer.

As Josh put it in another thread, approach everything as a critical thinker, including studies. Anabolic Minds is lucky to have so many bright individuals however people take advice on here as fact instead of remaining objective about information given and conducting their own research like Aleksander said.

My intent for this thread was not to start an uproar. It was to further educate people that studies are not the end all be all and a definitive answer, nothing more. Studies are an extremely important part of the puzzle but not a final answer.

As Josh put it in another thread, approach everything as a critical thinker, including studies. Anabolic Minds is lucky to have so many bright individuals however people take advice on here as fact instead of remaining objective about information given and conducting their own research like Aleksander said.

There seems to be a little confusion here. This thread is about published studies, not science.

Science is simply an evidence-based approach to solving real world problems. The closest emulator of the real world is *gasp* controlled trials, not anecdote. That's why we live in the 21st century and can live to be 80 years old. Because a logical mode of thought was adopted that allowed the advent of modern medicine via controlled trials.

Studies, on the other hand, can be quite dubious in nature. One must always look at the big picture. I've pointed this out quite a few times with, say, Indus Biotech. People want to get published, and to get published, you generally want positive results. Any company with this in mind has a stats guy that can properly manipulate (not illegally of course) the statistical data to display significance. It happens all the time, and it's why you should look at meta-analyses, structure/function relationships, and *gasp* yes anecdote (case reports)!

http://pescience.com/
http://selectprotein.com/
The above is my own opinion and does not reflect the opinion of PES

yes yes I get the technical point that has been made - science totally different issue, our interpretation of it, blah blah blah..i understand that cy (if you refer to me here), no worries just railing on
thanks tho

yes yes I get the technical point that has been made - science totally different issue, our interpretation of it, blah blah blah..i understand that cy (if you refer to me here), no worries just railing on
thanks tho

Not referring to you, not trying to start any drama or anything. Just a general point in that people are missing the intent of the speaker's lecture. He is completely for science (evidence-based medicine), but he is disillusioned because evidence is literally absent to many practitioners.

http://pescience.com/
http://selectprotein.com/
The above is my own opinion and does not reflect the opinion of PES

There seems to be a little confusion here. This thread is about published studies, not science.

Science is simply an evidence-based approach to solving real world problems. The closest emulator of the real world is *gasp* controlled trials, not anecdote. That's why we live in the 21st century and can live to be 80 years old. Because a logical mode of thought was adopted that allowed the advent of modern medicine via controlled trials.

Studies, on the other hand, can be quite dubious in nature. One must always look at the big picture. I've pointed this out quite a few times with, say, Indus Biotech. People want to get published, and to get published, you generally want positive results. Any company with this in mind has a stats guy that can properly manipulate (not illegally of course) the statistical data to display significance. It happens all the time, and it's why you should look at meta-analyses, structure/function relationships, and *gasp* yes anecdote (case reports)!

That's another good point and as anyone that has taken statistics knows, altering data for certain outcomes can be accomplished fairly easily.

Like I said guys this wasn't an attack on studies, science... anything really. Just hopefully inspiring people to realize that while a new study may show some promise, that's only the beginning of things to come. Having a study in hand or as support doesn't even scratch the surface unless they know what is being talked about in the study, have checked for reliability of the study, searched for other valid studies and so on.

I know that you guys who have posted in here all know this but new members may not. If we're going to be a largely evidence and study oriented community then the info should be there for people to have.

There seems to be a little confusion here. This thread is about published studies, not science.

Science is simply an evidence-based approach to solving real world problems. The closest emulator of the real world is *gasp* controlled trials, not anecdote. That's why we live in the 21st century and can live to be 80 years old. Because a logical mode of thought was adopted that allowed the advent of modern medicine via controlled trials.

Studies, on the other hand, can be quite dubious in nature. One must always look at the big picture. I've pointed this out quite a few times with, say, Indus Biotech. People want to get published, and to get published, you generally want positive results. Any company with this in mind has a stats guy that can properly manipulate (not illegally of course) the statistical data to display significance. It happens all the time, and it's why you should look at meta-analyses, structure/function relationships, and *gasp* yes anecdote (case reports)!

There seems to be a little confusion here. This thread is about published studies, not science.

Science is simply an evidence-based approach to solving real world problems. The closest emulator of the real world is *gasp* controlled trials, not anecdote. That's why we live in the 21st century and can live to be 80 years old. Because a logical mode of thought was adopted that allowed the advent of modern medicine via controlled trials.

Studies, on the other hand, can be quite dubious in nature. One must always look at the big picture. I've pointed this out quite a few times with, say, Indus Biotech. People want to get published, and to get published, you generally want positive results. Any company with this in mind has a stats guy that can properly manipulate (not illegally of course) the statistical data to display significance. It happens all the time, and it's why you should look at meta-analyses, structure/function relationships, and *gasp* yes anecdote (case reports)!

Manipulation of data through stats is not widespread. It may happen in horrible journals that nobody should be citing anyway, but a good journal is going to have reviewers that question the stats as well. If you do anything other than the appropriate stat test with a well regarded posthoc, it is going to raise red flags. Now if they straight up lie about their numbers to begin with, then that is a whole other issue.

As for reporting negative data, that isn't a new issue and there is a lot of effort being put into making it happen. Some journals have considered waiving fees for negative data. Although, keep in mind that there can be wrongdoing there as well. A group could easily say they did experiments and that nothing happened. At the end of the day, it is always best to hold off getting too excited until another group replicates the findings.